Damning For Skeptics

[Guest]

Poor Alex I feel for ya.

[Guest]

If you're a skeptic, then pretty much every clear sighting of BF crossing the road in front of a car would represent a guy in a suit. Thats alot of guys in suits. A sighting of a creature like Patty has very few alternatives.

Thank you.Southern, thats what I'm thinking.

Skunkfoot

Edited September 25, 2010 by Skunkfoot

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 24 September 2010 - 07:19 PM, said:

Yeah. Just like the argument that either we find a sasquatch body or fossil, or they don't exist.

It works both ways. Each and every time.

You do know that presenting a second false dilemma in no way strengthens the first, right?

You've lost count, Ray. It's the third false dilemma in the string, and none of them are valid. That includes the first: sasquatch doesn't exist because we haven't found a body.

Shall we go on to several more false dilemmas? I've got 'em by the bushel load. Skeptics aren't the only ones who can create them. I'm having fun.

[Huntster]

Well I've been assured here many times that looking like a bigfoot is probably the best way to ensure your safety in the woods because so few people are willing to shoot a real one. After all, no one has a permit.

And they can kick bootie on grizzlies, cougars, and cape buffalo, and if things get really scary, they can climb into their spaceship and fly to Planet X.

So why don't you don an ape suit and come visit the Nelchina Basin above timberline where so many hunters can see you from so far away. Don't worry, it ain't legal to shoot.......

But here's another hint: when I wear my bigfoot costume and wander around in the woods, I usually do it in parks where hunting is illegal and I certainly don't do it during deer or turkey season - just in case.

You are truly a very smart feller.

Of course, this tiny detail also has some bearing: a small number of hoaxers with bigfoot suits have been pranking people off and on for a few decades. That's not quite the same thing as a continent-wide population of real bigfoots that have shared this land with skilled hunters and chicken-coop protectors every single day since, you know, the Pleistocene.

That's true........if you believe that the continent is covered with sasquatches, and that there's one behind every tree.

But I thought we were beyond that? No?

Okay. Play on, Professor.............

[Huntster]

RayG, on 24 September 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

Perhaps there aren't as many hoaxers running around in suits as you think?

Do you have an estimate at least?

If you're a skeptic, then pretty much every clear sighting of BF crossing the road in front of a car would represent a guy in a suit. Thats alot of guys in suits. A sighting of a creature like Patty has very few alternatives.

The report of the sighting might also be a mis-identification or a manufactured report. I think that about covers it. Thus, we have four possibilities:

1) A guy in a suit (and for Ray, Huntster's estimate is <1% of reported sightings.........and not a one of them have been shot)

2) Mis-identifications (and for Ray, Huntster's estimate is 47% of reported sightings)

3) Manufactured reports (and for Ray, Huntster's estimate is 50% of reported sightings)

4 It's a freaking sasquatch (and for Ray, Huntster's estimate is 2% of reported sightings)

Edited September 25, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

If you're a skeptic, then pretty much every clear sighting of BF crossing the road in front of a car would represent a guy in a suit. Thats alot of guys in suits. A sighting of a creature like Patty has very few alternatives.

No, that'd be a denialist. A skeptic would say there are a few alternatives.

[Guest RayG]

I'm having fun.

And I'm having just as much fun pointing out the fallacies being presented.

Let's see...

The thread started out with the weak 'no dead hoaxers in bigfoot suits' argument, which then switched to 'if no dead bigfoot, then why no dead prankster', THEN came your either/or fallacy, followed by a second either/or fallacy, quickly followed by the first strawman fallacy, "you are the one that claims that we should have found a sasquatch by now", then yet another either/or fallacy (every clear sighting of a bigfoot crossing the road is either a guy in a suit or an actual bigfoot), and finished off with the second strawman, presented by yourself when you said, 'sasquatch doesn't exist because we haven't found a body', which is miles away from the no dead hoaxers in bigfoot suits argument.

You're right, this IS fun.

RayG

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 25 September 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

I'm having fun.

And I'm having just as much fun pointing out the fallacies being presented.

And that includes the first fallacy, correct?

Let's see...

The thread started out with the weak 'no dead hoaxers in bigfoot suits' argument, which then switched to 'if no dead bigfoot, then why no dead prankster'

As I expected. You have somehow forgotten (or ignored) the first fallacy on which this thread is based:

"If there are no dead bigfeet on a slab in Saskeptic's academic halls, then there are no bigfeet."

You're right, this IS fun.

Yes, it is!

Edited September 25, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest alex]

Well I've been assured here many times that looking like a bigfoot is probably the best way to ensure your safety in the woods because so few people are willing to shoot a real one. After all, no one has a permit.

But here's another hint: when I wear my bigfoot costume and wander around in the woods, I usually do it in parks where hunting is illegal and I certainly don't do it during deer or turkey season - just in case.

Of course, this tiny detail also has some bearing: a small number of hoaxers with bigfoot suits have been pranking people off and on for a few decades. That's not quite the same thing as a continent-wide population of real bigfoots that have shared this land with skilled hunters and chicken-coop protectors every single day since, you know, the Pleistocene.

I'm not feeling damned. Sorry.

eta: apostrophe typo!

But if sasquatch is reported everywhere like you said, then hoaxer's would likely be widespread too, so why haven't we shot one by now? Sasdenier is more like it, no offense, even skeptics are open to the possibilities

[Guest RayG]

As I expected. You have somehow forgotten (or ignored) the first fallacy on which this thread is based:

"If there are no dead bigfeet on a slab in Saskeptic's academic halls, then there are no bigfeet."

Another strawman? While some people may take that stance, it's not one I hold, nor did I see anyone argue for it in this thread. Throwing out fallacies in the hopes that one sticks is just weak.

RayG

[Guest alex]

Another strawman? While some people may take that stance, it's not one I hold, nor did I see anyone argue for it in this thread. Throwing out fallacies in the hopes that one sticks is just weak.

RayG

Ray, you said that you had a not sure encounter, is that correct?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 25 September 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

As I expected. You have somehow forgotten (or ignored) the first fallacy on which this thread is based:

"If there are no dead bigfeet on a slab in Saskeptic's academic halls, then there are no bigfeet."

Another strawman?

Not another; the first along this particular train of misinformation.

While some people may take that stance, it's not one I hold...

I'm certainly glad to read that, but as you admit, "some" skeptics do (in fact, most do, and I'll be looking for you to slip, too............)

nor did I see anyone argue for it in this thread.

You should read more closely. Try the very first sentence of the thread:

Skeptics tend to say that somebody should have shot a sasquatch by now, yet why can't they explain the lack of dead hoaxer's with gunshots in their chests?

Throwing out fallacies in the hopes that one sticks is just weak.

Yes, and denying all those except the one that fits your ideology is even weaker, which is what this thread is all about (in case you missed........ignored......it).

Edited September 25, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest RayG]

Well, I had a night-time encounter over 30 years ago that left me scratching my head, but no evidence ever surfaced that convinced me it was sasquatch.

Huntster, the argument presented in the first sentence is not the strawman argument you have tried to turn it into. While the premise may be similar, the conclusion is not even close.

I'm deeply saddened to see you resort to such behavior. <sniff> (not really, I left my emotions at the door when I stepped into this thread)

RayG

Edited September 25, 2010 by RayG

[Guest alex]

Well, I had a night-time encounter over 30 years ago that left me scratching my head, but no evidence ever surfaced that convinced me it was sasquatch.

RayG

That is interesting Ray, did you ever wonder what it was?

[Guest RayG]

Sure, when it was happening I had three things immediately pop into my head:

1. human friends trying to screw with my brain

2. a hippie cow, they wandered all over the place and looked like this

3. bear

RayG